Asian Journal of Social Sciences

and Management Studies

ISSN: 2313-7401
Vol. 3, No. 2, 150-162, 2016
http://www.asianonlinejournals.com/index.php/AJSSMS

A Review: Customer Perceived Value and its Dimension

Septa Akbar Aulia1
Inda Sukati2
Zuraidah Sulaiman3

1,2,3

Faculty of Management, Universiti

Malaysia, Skudai, Johor, Malaysia

Teknologi

( Corresponding Author)

Abstract
Customer perceived value has become the most extensive used concept in marketing literature in recent
years. It is considered as the main key to sustain the business especially in high market competition.
Consequently, understanding its dimensions and the influences on customer attitude and behavior
becomes crucial for all marketers. This paper reviews the related literatures and categorized dimension
of perceived value of durable product into three categories namely product-related value, social-related
value, and personal-related value.
Keywords: Customer perceived value, Value dimension, Customer satisfaction, Customer repurchase intention, Loyalty

Contents
1. Introduction ....................................................................................................................................................................... 151
2. Concept of Perceived Value ............................................................................................................................................... 151
3. Dimension of Perceived Value ........................................................................................................................................... 151
4. Value Dimension Category ................................................................................................................................................ 153
5. Previous Studies on Perceived Value ................................................................................................................................ 159
6. Conclusion .......................................................................................................................................................................... 159
References .............................................................................................................................................................................. 159
Bibliography .......................................................................................................................................................................... 162

Citation | Septa Akbar Aulia; Inda Sukati; Zuraidah Sulaiman (2016). A Review: Customer Perceived Value and its Dimension. Asian Journal of Social
Sciences and Management Studies, 3(2): 150-162.
10.20448/journal.500/2016.3.2/500.2.150.162
DOI:
2313-7401
ISSN(E) :
2518-0096
ISSN(P) :
Licensed:
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 3.0 License
Contribution/Acknowledgement: All authors contributed to the conception and design of the study. The author would like to thank School of Graduate
Studies (SPS) UTM and Research Management Centre (RMC) UTM for assisting this study financially.
This study received no specific financial support.
Funding:
The authors declare that they have no conflict of interests.
Competing Interests:
The authors confirm that the manuscript is an honest, accurate, and transparent account of the study was reported; that no
Transparency:
vital features of the study have been omitted; and that any discrepancies from the study as planned have been explained.
This study follows all ethical practices during writing.
Ethical:
Received: 28 December 2015/ Revised: 14 January 2016/ Accepted: 26 January 2016/ Published: 2 February 2016
History:
Asian Online Journal Publishing Group
Publisher:

150

Asian Journal of Social Sciences and Management Studies, 2016, 3(2): 150-162

1. Introduction
The use of the concept of perceived value has been regarded as imperative prerequisite for business sustainability
especially in fierce market competition and has been considered as the key of success for all companies (Huber et al.,
2001). It has become an interested topic since decades ago, yet the consensus regarding its definition and the concept
has not been obtained and remains unclear (Sanchez-Fernandez and Iniesta-Bonillo, 2007).
It has been proven that the used of the concept of customer perceived value does not only result in creating more
satisfied customer, but more importantly it is also found to have direct effect on customer repurchase intention and
loyalty (Lin et al., 2005). In simple words, the more benefits the product or the service offer, the more satisfied the
customer, thus the higher chances that lead to positive behavior. Unfortunately, with the nature of product
characteristic, there are various types of value dimensions that can be found or created for one type of product or
service. Consequently, it may be difficult to identify what type of value that company can deliver or offer to the
customer through their product. This leads to the need for the better perspective of perceived value in order to help
identifying its dimensions. This study focuses on the generic dimensions of perceive value especially in product or
non-service related context.

2. Concept of Perceived Value

The lack of agreement related to the definition and conceptualization of perceived value among the scholars have
indicated that perceived value can be described as the complex construct (Lapierre, 2000). The differences of
opinions can be seen from two major perspective or view of perceived value; those are as unidimensional construct
and multi-dimensional construct (Sanchez-Fernandez and Iniesta-Bonillo, 2007). Although the majority of the
researchers agree that perceived value should be considered as multi-dimensional construct. Sanchez-Fernandez and
Iniesta-Bonillo (2007) concluded that the critics among the researchers have contended that multidimensional
construct are conceptually ambiguous, the dimensions explained are less variance and the relationships between the
dimensions and other construct somehow are confound.
However this lack of agreement does not mean to have no consensus at all in conceptualizing perceived value.
The general concept that can be understood is that perceived value involves the relationship between customer and
the product (Holbrook, 1996) which is strongly related to the utility or benefits the customer get in return for the
money or any other cost they spend (Zeithaml, 1988) including both cognitive and affective aspect Holbrook and
Hirschman (1982).
As defined by Zeithaml (1988) that perceived value is ... the consumers overall assessment of the utility of a
product based on perceptions of what is received and what is given. The receive components can be referred to the
benefits get from using the product while the given component can be referred to the customer sacrifice in acquiring
the product including monetary and non-monetary aspect. In this regard, Zeithaml (1988) described value in four
different ways: (1) value as low price, (2) value as whatever the consumer wants in a product, (3) value as the quality
get from the price the customer pay, and (4) value as what is get for what is given.

3. Dimension of Perceived Value

Since the concept of perceived value is related to product benefits, thus it is important to understand how this
value is seen or viewed by the customer and what type of value or dimensions that can be created by the company. In
this regard, several authors have identified and proposed several dimensions of value based on their own theory.
Among those are:

3.1. Value Hierarchy Model

The Value hierarchy model conceptualize value into three hierarchy levels which are desired attributes, desired
consequences, and desired end-states or goal and purposes, in which the lower levels are the means by which the
higher level ends are achieved. In this model, Woodruff (1997) defined perceived value as customers perceived
preference for an evaluation of those product attributes, attribute performances, and consequences arising from use
that facilitate (or block) achieving the customers goals and purpose in use situations.

Figure-1. Customer value hierarchy model

(Source: Woodruff (1997))

151

Asian Journal of Social Sciences and Management Studies, 2016, 3(2): 150-162

He suggests that the customer may either use their goal to attach and evaluate the preference attribute and
attribute performance (moving down hierarchy), or think the product as a bundle of attributes then form the certain
attribute based on their ability to facilitate the desired consequences that help them to achieve their goals and
purposes.
Woodruff argues that this hierarchy model helps manager to specify exactly what managers should learn about
their customer. He argues that this model looks beyond the attribute-based key buying criteria, in which it involves
the consequences in use situation that the seller should learn and the goals to which those consequences lead.
The dynamic concept of perceived value proposed by Woodruff (1997) is commendable in explaining the
complexity of perceived value as well as has successfully helped to explain why customer attach different weights to
various benefits in evaluating alternative product / service (Khalifa, 2004). However this model fails to explain the
various components or elements of value (Sanchez-Fernandez and Iniesta-Bonillo, 2007). Besides that, it is difficult
to identify what preference attribute that contribute to customer value, and what consequences they want. Since every
customer has different taste or preference of attribute on the same product, the manager would find difficulty in
finding such specific attribute. As stated by Griffin and Hauser (1993) that the customers may have hundreds of
preference attributes and consequences value dimensions, whereby the organization cannot work with so many
different values at the same time. Moreover, this model has been considered to neglect the most fundamental concept
of perceived value that is the trade-off between benefits and sacrifices. In which it fails to pay sufficient attention on
the customers sacrifices either in pre-purchase stage, in-use stage, or post-use stage (Parasuraman, 1997).
Based on the above arguments, it can be said that value should be viewed in more specific way rather than
viewing it as the process of evaluation of preference attribute to achieve desired goal or purposes. Thus there is a
need for better conceptualization of value that can enable the researchers or the organizations to delve the specific
component or dimension of value, or a framework that enables them to identify their position which can help them to
form a better strategic based on the component or dimension of value that they feel their product has not yet fulfilled
or lacking of.

3.2. Utilitarian and Hedonic Model

Holbrook and Hirschman (1982) had a notion that value should not only viewed from utilitarian perspective in
which the product is valued based on its performance or functions, but also include the experiential perspective in
which the product is valued based on the experience or the feeling arouse from consumption, including the symbolic
and hedonic aspect. Consequently, the utilitarian and hedonic model was proposed and has given big contribution on
perceived value concept. By dichotomizing value into utilitarian and hedonic value, it will help the other researchers
to view value in better perspective. This dichotomization of value has been considered as the basis conceptualization
of value in multi-dimensional approach (Sanchez-Fernandez and Iniesta-Bonillo, 2007) in which many other
dimensions of value have been proposed based on this perspective.
However, this model is still too general in depicting the complexity of customer perceived value. It might give
confusion of the dimensions of value that can be from other source of value. For instance, the emotional value can be
derived either from the product-related source that is through consumption experience or from the personal-related
sources through connection between product and personal characteristic. Thus, it is difficult to differentiate these
dimensions of value if it is viewed from this perspective, as they are both are part of hedonic value.
Moreover, the subsequent study of Babin et al. (1994) and Richins (1994) who included the utilitarian and
hedonic component in developing the scale to measure the value of shopping experience were related to the
possessions people already own, which is in contrast with the study that concerned measuring the perception of value
in durable goods in order to understand the process of customer choice behavior (Sweeney and Soutar, 2001). It
means, the component of hedonic value used in shopping experience is different from the component used in durable
goods as what is focused in this study. Therefore, there will be more different components of hedonic value that can
be separated and grouped into different single dimensions of value rather than describe it as hedonic value to
explain all the feeling arouse when using the product.

3.3. Consumption Value Theory

Underlying from the utilitarian and hedonic perspective, the broader theoretical framework of perceived value
has been developed by Sheth et al. (1991a; 1991b) in their theory of consumption value which is based on the
customer decision or choice whether to buy or not to buy, to choose between two products or to choose one
particular brand over another. They suggested five dimensions of value namely functional value which is related to
the utilitarian or functional purpose of the product, social value which is related to the image obtained from the
society, emotional value which is related to the feeling arouse from using the product, epistemic value which is
related to the curiosity or desire for knowledge or novelty seeking, and conditional value which is derived due to
specific situation or circumstances that faced by the consumers.
This model surely helps to understand the value in much easier than other concepts proposed as the organization
can easily delve the component of value by referring to its source or dimensions. Compared to the utilitarian and
hedonic value, the dimension suggested in consumption value theory was more complex which include the variety of
fields such as social, economic, and clinical aspect (Sweeney and Soutar, 2001). Sanchez-Fernandez and IniestaBonillo (2007) stated that this model is the most important contribution to the study of perceived value, however it
ignores some sources of value such as ethic value and spiritual value (Holbrook, 1996). Regarding to this matter,
Sanchez-Fernandez and Iniesta-Bonillo (2007) suggested that Holbrooks typology of consumer value has been
considered as the most comprehensive model to date compared to other models due to it includes more components
such as social, economic, hedonic, and altruistic aspect.

3.4. Holbrook Typology of Consumer Value

According to Holbrook (1996) perceived value can be defined as an interactive relativistic preference
152

Asian Journal of Social Sciences and Management Studies, 2016, 3(2): 150-162

experience. By interactive He meant that value entails the relationship between the customer and the product, it is
comparative, subjective, and specific to the context. He claimed that the customer perceived the value not in the
purchase stage however during the consumption stage.
He developed a framework that produces the dimension of value based on three dichotomies or three key
dimension of value which are 1) extrinsic versus intrinsic, 2) self-oriented versus other-oriented and 3) active versus
reactive. Based on these dichotomization He proposed eight dimensions of consumer value namely efficiency value,
play value, excellence value, aesthetic value, status value, ethics value, esteem value, and spirituality value. He
argued that each dimensions are interrelated to each other.
Despite the model has been perceived as comprehensive and more complex than others, however, SanchezFernandez and Iniesta-Bonillo (2007) stated that some critics from other researchers have been addressed for its
complexity in which the operationalization for certain dimension of value is difficult (e.g. ethical value and spiritual
value) which are relatively neglected in the literature (Brown, 1999; Holbrook, 1999; Wagner, 1999) for its
distinction between the dimensions such as status and esteem which is ambiguous (Solomon, 1999) and for the
difficulty to recognize between the active and reactive of source of value (Richins, 1999).
Based on several concept discussed at the above, it can be said that the compartmentation of value into several
dimensions or sources is the best way to explain the various types of consumption utilities. It is much simpler model
to be adopted or applied for other researchers in conducting their related studies or for the marketers in developing
and forming a better strategy for their business, and it is also comprehensive enough in depicting the complexity of
value. As stated by Sanchez-Fernandez and Iniesta-Bonillo (2007) that this model can be considered to be very
helpful as well as interesting, yet challenging.
In attempts to improve the previous proposed models, it may help the task easier to identify the dimension of
value that has clear distinction from one to another if the value is viewed from the perspective of customer needs.
Through observation on the multi-dimensional research stream models discussed earlier, defining perceived value
only from one type of need is insufficient to describe the complex nature of value. For example, several authors have
argued that viewing perceived value as the trade-off between only quality and price (product related need) is too
simple concept in depicting the comprehensiveness of value (Mathwick et al., 2001).
Regarding to this matter, some authors suggest that value should be viewed with broader concept rather than
merely based on product performance and price. The appearance of new perspective of value has brought to the
consideration of affective components of value (e.g. (Sheth et al., 1991a; Babin et al., 1994; Holbrook, 1996;1999)).
In relations to that, several authors have also proposed the broader definition of benefits and costs involved in
acquiring the product (Khalifa, 2004). While others suggest that personal related component plays an important role
as well as has major contribution on customer perceived value (e.g. (Zeithaml, 1988; Woodruff, 1997)).
Concerning this gap, the present study attempts to propose the generic dimension of consumption value by
dividing value according to customer needs. As stated by Park et al. (1986) that customer perceptions of value are
influenced by their needs. Since there are many components of value that have been found or proposed in previous
studies, thus viewing customer perceived value from this perspective (through the needs) will help to better
understand about the value offered to the customer. The researcher and the marketing strategist therefore will be able
to delve the component of value by referring to the needs or wants of the customers.
In this study, the dimension of value can be categorized into three groups which are product-related value, socialrelated value, and personal-related value. It is predicted that the customer is likely to be highly satisfied if these three
types of dimensions of value are fulfilled.

4. Value Dimension Category

4.1. Product-Related Value
In this study, Product-related value is referred to the customer perspective that product is the source of value. By
source, it means the product is viewed as a bundle of benefits rather than viewing it as bundle of attributes (Peter and
Olson, 1990).
Since the product is the main focus in purchase activities, where the customers spend their money for, thus they
expect some benefits from it. These benefits or value can be seen from two fundamental perspectives of customer
needs which are the need for product function and the need for the pleasure of using the product.
In the first perspective, the customer sees the product as the tool that has function either to solve the problem of
the customer or to make the task of the customer easier. In this perspective, the product is solely valued based on its
ability to perform its function. This need can be considered as the very basic need that every product should meet
these criteria before the customer evaluate anything else about the product. Kanos model refer this need as must
be need in which the product function is taken for granted whereby it will drive the customer defection and attrition
if this need is not met (Joiner, 1994; Thompson, 1998).
Since there are many attributes in the product, some attributes may contribute to the function of the product
while other attributes may contribute to the other dimension of value. Thus knowing the type of elements or attribute
of the product is crucial. In this regards, Zeithaml (1988) dichotomized the product attribute into two cues: intrinsic
cues which comprises the physical attributes of the product such as the design, color, and flavor in which they are
consumed along with the product, and the extrinsic cues which comprises the non-physical attributes of the product
but they are part of the product such as the name of the product/brand, the price, and the product advertisement.
Similarly, the dichotomy of product attribute can also be referred as tangible (physical attribute) and intangible (nonphysical) attribute (e.g. (Monroe, 1990; Gale, 1994)).
Based on the above dichotomization, the products elements which are not related to the customer need for
product function will be eliminated from the definition of product-related value and will be considered as part of
other value dimension such as social-related value or personal related value. For example, the color and design
attribute in this study will be put in the personal-related value dimension since the value derived is depending or
based on the characteristic of the customer, as well as the brand image attribute that will be put in the social-related
153

Asian Journal of Social Sciences and Management Studies, 2016, 3(2): 150-162

value dimension since the effect or the benefits is more related to the society.
In relation to that, several authors have proposed the dimension of value related to the need for product function
in different terms such as utilitarian value Holbrook and Hirschman (1982) functional value (Sheth et al., 1991a)
practical value (Mattsson, 1991) and efficiency and excellence value (Holbrook, 1999). While in particular, the
subsequent study of Sweeney and Soutar (2001) developed the scale related to this dimension of value and referred it
as functional value that comprises two components which are the performance (speed) and the quality of the product.
However, several studies have found that the customers do not only consider the product performance or its
quality when evaluate the function of the product, but also consider about how the product can be used easily without
any difficulty or confusing while using it. In this regard, the study of Pura (2005) use the term convenience value
instead of functional value and included ease of use as one of the scale to measure it. While the other study of
Creusen and Schoormans (2005) separated the perceived of ease of use as another dimension of value namely
ergonomic value. It was found that perceived ease of use has positive and direct effect on customer satisfaction
(e.g. (Tung, 2010)).
In relation to the customer need for product function, several authors had a notion that price attribute is part of
functional value besides the reliability and durability which is often referred as product quality (Sheth et al., 1991b).
However, Sweeney and Soutar (2001) argued that the price attribute should be separated from the other attribute such
as quality in measuring perceived functional value as price and quality have different influence on perceived value;
price has negative effect and quality has positive effect on perceived value (e.g., (Dodds et al., 1991)). Thus they
suggest that quality and price are sub factors of functional value.
In relation to that, several authors argue that the cost involves in acquiring the product should not only include
the monetary related cost such as the actual price of the product, but also the non-monetary related cost such as the
effort and the time spent (Zeithaml, 1988; Treacy and Wiersima, 1995). In addition, Huber et al. (2001) argue that
the customers do not only encounter cost when purchasing the product, however they also encounter the risks related
to the uncertainty or any negative consequences when consuming the product. They suggest that the risk that the
customer encounter from activities such as acquisition, consumption, and maintenance include the financial risk,
social risk and psychological risks are part of the functional value as well. Regarding to this matter, several authors
have suggested that the term sacrifices value is more suitable to be used to describe all the cost (monetary, nonmonetary, and risk) involved in acquiring and using the product (e.g. (Wang et al., 2004)).
On the other hand, the value of the product can also be seen from the perspective of how the product can give a
pleasure to the customers. From this perspective, the customer often considers that the experience in using the
product is also part of their basic need when using the product. As the product is used or consumed, the good
experience such as enjoyment from using the product will also influence the customer perception of product value. In
this regard, Jordan (1998) defined this product pleasure as the emotional and hedonic benefits associated with
product use.
Previous studies have proposed the dimension of value related to the need for pleasure in different terms such as
hedonic value (e.g. Holbrook and Hirschman (1982); Babin et al. (1994)) affective value (e.g. (Lai, 1995)) emotional
value (e.g. (Mattsson, 1991; Sheth et al., 1991b) and play (fun) value (e.g. (Holbrook, 1999)). While in particular, the
subsequent study of Sweeney and Soutar (2001) developed the scale related to this dimension of value that includes
enjoyment, relax, feeling good, and pleasure and referred it as emotional value, while Pura and Gummerus (2007)
identified fun and teasing as part of emotional value in mobile service context.
Although several authors argue that emotional value has greater effect than the functional value (e.g. (Hartman,
1973; Sweeney and Soutar, 2001) however both functional and emotional benefits of the product are important
aspect in customer perceived value, and have positive affect on satisfaction and loyalty (e.g.(Lim et al., 2006)).
Based on the discussion above, it can be said that there are two types of customer needs that need to be
considered when evaluating the value related to the product which are the need for product function to solve
customers problem, and the need for a pleasure when using the product. Thus the model can be developed as below:

Figure-2. Customer needs in product-related value

4.2. Social-Related Value

In this category, social-related value is referred to the customer perspective that society is the source of value. By
154

Asian Journal of Social Sciences and Management Studies, 2016, 3(2): 150-162

source it means the customers view society as the place where they can obtain some benefits through the interaction
with other people. These benefits can be seen from two fundamental perspectives of needs which are the need for
acceptance and the need for compliment.
In the first, the product is evaluated based on the perspective of how well it can help the customer to be accepted
in the society. Since the customer himself is part of society either in small scale such as family or friends, or in big
scale such as community, thus they need to interact with other people in which the consequences from using the
product is more important than the function of the product itself (Cova, 1997). In other words, the value can be
obtained when the customer feels that they are connected to other people (Sheth et al., 1991a).
Several findings from previous studies have indicated that being accepted in the society is part of basic need that
affects customer satisfaction and loyalty (e.g. (Gallarza and Gil, 2006)). As explained by Maslow (1943) being
accepted in the society is part of deficit needs (basic need) in which the failure of the product to fulfil this need will
cause uncomfortable feeling which leads to unfavorable attitude and unfavorable behavior towards particular
product.
Since the people in the society are governed by the norms or the values, thus they need to follow this rule in
order to be accepted in the society. Conversely, the violation of the rules or the norms in society will cause the
customer for being uncomfortable. For example, considering Playboy is very famous and successful magazine in
western countries, but not in another country such as Malaysia (even it is banned) due to it against the norm of
Malaysia people as Muslims which can harm or destruct their beliefs. Thus the people who live in this society will
have to obey or to respect the norms by not selling or purchasing the playboy magazine otherwise they will face
the issue related to the society such as gain bad reputation, being isolated, or even can be regarded as the national
issue in which they will get punishment or fine.
In relation to that, the involvement of the culture or the norms in the society will not only cause the social
pressure to perform the behavior in question (Fishbein and Ajzen, 1975) but also influences the customer perception
of value since the customer is viewed as individual who is actualizing the cultural characteristic which depends on
social shared values and norms (Yang and Jolly, 2009). As stated by Sweeney and Soutar (2001) the customer
perceived value may vary based upon the culture. In other words, the customer perception of product value is subject
or associated with the characteristic of the social environment such as the culture or the norm in the place where they
live in Harris et al. (2005).
This difference perspective of value not only can be found across the country due to national culture differences
(e.g. (Nakata and Sivakumar, 2001; Yang and Jolly, 2009)) however it might be found even within the same country
which has many variety of cultures such as Malaysia , Indonesia, and many other countries. Concerning with this
matter, the cross-cultural researches have consistently recommended by not applying the same strategies for all the
countries due to different country or society has different culture thus the people who live in that society may have
different perspective of value towards particular product (Lee et al., 2002; Henten et al., 2003).
The finding of previous studies also indicates that the need for acceptance or being accepted in the society is
strongly related to the common perception or the common behavior held by the majority of the people who live in
that particular area or society (e.g. (Pavlou and Chai, 2002; Yang and Jolly, 2009)). It can be said that in order to be
accepted, the customer tend to follow or to accept the other perception and tend to behave as other behave. In other
words, particularly in society context, the customer may value certain product based on how other value that product
(how the other people will response or react to it).
As explained in the theory of reason action (Fishbein and Ajzen, 1975) the customers tend to perform the
behavior according to what is expected by the people who are close or important to them such as family or friends,
more specifically if the personality of the customer is weak (Ha, 1998). This influence can be referred to the
subjective norm whereby the customer is under larger of social pressure in which it will cause a cognitive conflict
(mental discomfort) if the customer is too conservative or too liberal compared to the society (Ha, 1998).
This can be explained with the example of the group of people who believe that Japan is the best country in
producing product-based technology, thus when it comes to purchase an electronic product, the customer as an
individual who live in that society will have or use the same perception as others in which they evaluate the product
not only based on the quality, however it also based on the country of origin where the product is made. This social
perception influences the customers perception on perceived value in which it will give them comfortable and
confidence feeling when they accept or follow others perception.
Conversely, purchasing the other product which has low reputation in society will cause the uncomfortable
feeling. For instance, instead of purchasing the Japan product, the customer purchase the product made in China
whereby the common perception held by the society is that China product has poor or bad quality. Thus the customer
will perceive a negative image and thus makes them uncomfortable.
However, not all of the perceptions in the society will be entirely adopted by its member (customer) in order for
them to be accepted, in which some perceptions may be accepted by small group of people, while other perception
may accepted by most of people in that society (Lai, 1995). It can be said that the adoption of the perception or
behavior in society might depends on the personal values such as the beliefs, goals, or principles that held by every
individuals. Thus they may accept and adopt this perception as long as it does not against their personal values yet
they also have to follow the norms or culture in the society particularly if it is strongly related to the beliefs of
majority people in that society.
On the other hand, the value of the product can also be seen from the perspective of how the product can help to
make good impression on others. In this perspective the customer sees the society as the place where they can get
compliment or appreciation from other people through the interaction. This need for compliment can be considered
as one of the basic need that naturally exists in every persons life, in which it can make the customer feel admired
and feel better about their self. The Psychologist William James noted that the deepest principle in human nature is
to be appreciated. It indicates that compliments address the basic human need for recognition and being appreciated
or respected.
155

Asian Journal of Social Sciences and Management Studies, 2016, 3(2): 150-162

In order for the customer to gain recognition or being respected in the society, thus they tend to seek the product
that can help to enhance their social self-concept (Sweeney and Soutar, 2001). As it is conceptualized/argued by Park
et al. (1986) that enhancement the self-concept or self-identity in society environment is part of the customer basic
need in which the failure of the product to fulfil this need will cause the uncomfortable feeling which leads to the less
satisfaction. Park et al. (1986) suggested that this need underlies the customer perception of value.
In this regard, Maslow describes the need for being appreciated or being respected as the higher level of
customer basic need in which the failure to fulfil this need will make the individual feel anxious and tense.
According to Maslow, the customers need for respect can be seen from two types of needs which are the need to
have self-esteem and the need for self-respect. The customers need to have self-esteem as they want to be recognized
in the society, thus they tend to seek the fame or glory. In this perspective, the customer with low self-esteem often
need respect from other people which includes the need for status, need for prestige, need for attention, need for
recognition, etc. All of these needs can be said are reflecting or leading to the desire for product that can help them
look good and make a good impression on others. The compliments and positive feedbacks given to them regarding
the product they use are very important to them as it can boost their self-esteem.
In this perspective, the customer tend to focus on how to impress others by purchasing the product that is seen as
unusual in the society or environment such as high class product in which the majority of the people in the society
cannot afford to purchase, or something that is scare to have so that people in that society will give attention to them,
or something which is famous or popular in the society so that they can gain popularity. As stated by Mason (1981)
this type of customer (conspicuous customer) are likely to be inspired by the society rather than the economic or
psychological utility, whereby in order to impress others, they tend to show their ability to pay particularly high
prices for product prestige. This finding indicates that the need for good impression or to impress other is motivated
by desire to be known or to be respected. Thus, all of these efforts can be said reflects the perception of impression
value.
While on the other hand, the need for self-respect is considered as the higher version of self-esteem need in
which the customer need to respect for himself rather than to gain respect from other people (not concern with
others think). This includes the need for strength, need for freedom, need for self-confidence or independence and
others. This need is strongly related to customers own achievement (inner competence) as unique individual
whereby the purpose of purchasing the product is aimed for the sake of satisfying own-self (self-respect). In other
words, those with self-respect do not concern with other people think (Langer, 1999). Since this need is more related
to the personal-related purpose rather than social-related purpose, thus it will be considered as part of personalrelated value that will be explained in the next sub topic.
Several previous studies have indicated that having a good impression in the society can help to increase
customers self-confidence thus boost the self-esteem, in which it affects their perception of value towards a product
that reflects value dimensions such as social value (e.g. (Sheth et al., 1991a; Sweeney and Soutar, 2001)) status value
(Holbrook, 1999) esteem value (Holbrook, 1999) or reputation value (Petrick, 2002) etc.
Based on the discussion above, it can be said that there are two types of customer needs that need to be
considered when evaluating the value related to the society which are the need for acceptance and the need for
compliment. Thus the model can be developed as below:

Figure-3. Customer needs in social-related value

4.3. Personal-Related Value

Some authors have suggested that the need for distinguish between value (singular) and values (plural) in the
value study as many literature often misused the terms and treated them as interchangeable terms (e.g. (Khalifa,
2004); (Ledden et al., 2007)) whereas they are discrete constructs. In which the former as a preference judgement
and the latter as the criteria by which the people make such preference judgement (e.g. (Holbrook, 1996)). Thus in
this study, personal-related value can be referred to the consumption benefits (value) that are strongly related to the
values hold by the customer as a person - enduring beliefs that guide the way the people behave in daily life activities
(e.g. (Rokeach, 1968; Kahle, 1989)).
Since every person (customer) has values, thus it influences their perception of value towards a product (Oliver,
1996; Huber et al., 2001). This can be seen from the rational example of the customer who has strong concern about
health, thus they usually expect the product (e.g. food) that contains more nutrient or less additive ingredient. Thus
their perception of value towards food differs from the person who has less concern about the health in which they
156

Asian Journal of Social Sciences and Management Studies, 2016, 3(2): 150-162

may value the food based on its taste or the portion, etc. In other words, the consumption value can be obtained when
the customer feels that the product can enhance their beliefs or in line with their characteristic, goal, philosophy,
principles, or anything that they think is important for their life (e.g. (Khalifa, 2004)).
In relation to that, Maslow postulated that the customers must first have fulfilled the most basic need before they
are going to have desire to fulfil the higher level of needs. Since the basic purpose of purchasing the product is due to
its functional value, thus the customers should first meet this need before they are going to consider the higher level
of needs which are the personal-related value. Given the example at the above, in this case suppose the customer is
hungry, then the first thing they are going to evaluate about the food is the taste and the portion of the foods. Once
the foods have fulfilled these criteria, then the customer is going to have a high level of desire which is related to
their personal criteria such as the less fat food or organic food. Although in this case it might be possible for the
customer will neglect the basic need (portion or taste) in order for them to achieve the highest level of needs (e.g.
most of healthy food is tasteless), thus it can be argued that fulfilling the higher level of needs which is personalrelated value is the most priority as long as the basic need is at acceptable level. In other words, it can be said that
when the customer feels that the product is in line with their characteristic or beliefs (fulfil personal-related value),
the increase of chances of a favorable response on lower level of need such as social and functional-related value are
likely to be higher, thus they are likely to accept that value given at the minimum acceptable level due to the higher
needs are fulfilled (e.g. (Sweeney and Soutar, 2001)).
Personal-related value is strongly related to the self-concept held by the customer. As explained earlier in the
social-related value context, the customer needs to have self-esteem in order to be respected in which they tend to
seek the product that can help them to enhance their self-concept. In other words, it can be said that the self-concept
presented in the society is merely aimed to seek respect from others or known as social self-concept how a person
presents himself to others or how others perceived the customer (Burns, 1979). In which the purpose of purchasing
the product may not purely based on personal preference otherwise it may be inspired by society (e.g. (Mason,
1981)).
However, the self-concept in personal-related value is a higher level than the self-concept in social-related value,
whereby the customer does not concern on getting respect from other people, but more importantly is how they
respect their self as a person. Maslow explained this as the higher version of self-esteem whereby the customers need
to be their self as what they are, not because they want to be respected by others, but because they want to respect
their self (self-respect). In other words, it is about how the customers perceived their self as a person (actual selfconcept) (Burns, 1979).
Although the essence of society lies on its beliefs, behavior, norms and values that are commonly shared by
individuals (Leung et al., 2005) which permits social expectation and understanding of the good, beautiful, and
others, however the personal values held by every customer may not solely in agreement with the values commonly
shared by society. The customer may have different perspective about what is good and what is bad or what is
important and not important with the society. As argued by Lai (1995) that some of social values might be followed
by small portion of people, while other values might be accepted widely. Thus it can be said that the value derived in
personal-related context is very subjective in which it is strongly related to their unique characteristic and their goal
in life.
Several authors have argued that personal values play a center role in decision making process (Zeithaml, 1988)
while others argue that it is a goal or the purpose of purchasing a product (Woodruff, 1997). It has been found that
personal values significantly affect the customer perceived value in several field of studies such as service (Ladhari
et al., 2011) education (Ledden et al., 2007) and apparel product (Jai-Ok et al., 2002). Thus involving personal
values in measuring customer perceived value is crucial since customer perception of value is very subjective (e.g.
(Holbrook, 1996)).
In this study, personal-related value can be seen from two fundamental perspectives of needs related to their
selves which are the needs for being own-self and the needs for doing good things in life. In the first perspective, the
customers value the product based on how fits it is with their characteristic. Since the customer is an individual who
is unique by nature, thus they tend to accept anything that they think is in line with their characteristic and reject
anything that is not in line with their characteristic. As conceptualized by Holbrook (1996) that value is self-oriented
in which the customer always think about their selves whenever they purchase the product including how they will
react to it or how it has effect on them. It can be said the value can be obtained when the customer feels that the
product characteristic matches with the customer characteristic.
In relation to that, several authors have argued that the need for being own-self is the highest level of needs
which controls the needs of anything else. As stated by Zeithaml (1988) in her means-ends theory, this personal
characteristic plays as a center in defining value that helps to identify the desired product attribute. This perspective
implies that the customer has different goal or reason in purchasing a product, thus has different perception of value.
The matching characteristic between the product and the customer can be seen from two aspects. At first, the
customer may value the product based on its physical attribute such as the design, color, taste, function, etc. As for
some customer may perceive higher satisfaction when the color of the product is red, but other may dont like red
color thus makes them less satisfied. It is purely based on the customer characteristic thus it gives them more value
when it is matching with their own characteristic.
Secondly, the customer may value the product based on the image it represents. In this perspective, the value can
be derived when the customer perceived their self-image matches with the product brand image. As postulated in the
self-congruity theory (Sirgy, 1986) the self-assessment or self-evaluation lies in the central of customer belief system
thus play a greater role in persons life. As the evaluation process involves the comparison between the self-image
outcome (e.g. compliment from other) and self-expectancy (customer perception about himself), thus the positive
correlation results in increasing the customers self-esteem, while the negative correlation results in decreasing the
customers self-esteem. It can be said that the greater the matches (between self-image outcome and selfexpectancy), the more valuable the product to the customers, and vice versa.
157

Asian Journal of Social Sciences and Management Studies, 2016, 3(2): 150-162

According to Sirgy (1985) this personality image can be described in term of a set of attribute such as friendly,
modern, youthful and traditional, in which it is different from the functional attribute of the product such as the
quality and price and not only determined by the physical characteristic of the product, however the marketing and
psychology also play important role and strongly associated with this personality image. Thus it can be said that in
this perspective the value of the product is strongly related to the customer actual self-concept rather than influenced
by other people or society (social/ideal social self-concept), in which it affects the customers product preference
thus influence their perception of value.
As the product brand serves as expressive devices, thus the customer prefer the brand that has closest image to
their own (De Chernatony and McDonald, 1997). Consequently, the perception of functional and social related value
may be influenced by this personality concern depending on the strength of actual self-concept that the customer has.
In this regard the study of Pascale et al. (2000) examined the effect of actual self-concept (how customer perceived
himself, also known as self-perception) and ideal self-concept (how the customer would like to perceive herself) on
product evaluation. The findings reveal that the customer actual self-concept is more associated with product-related
value such as product functionality, while the ideal self-concept is more associated with social-related value such as
social status. The study also found that the product evaluation of both functional and status-related product differs
between the customers from different culture (in this case between Malaysian customer and Australian customer).
The finding of this study indicates that the customer who has low self-esteem is likely to seek for social-related value
(e.g. status value) while for those who have high self-esteem the customers are likely to focus on the product-related
value (e.g. functional value). Thus it can be said that in customer perceived value context, the personal related value
does have effect on social and product related value.
On the other hand, as human being, the customer also sees value of the product through the goodness or virtue
that can be shared with other people. This value is strongly related to the customer goal in life. In this context of
value, Maslow described this need as the highest level of consumer needs whereby the customers think beyond their
selves. He described this need as transcendence needs which only small amount of people who can really achieve
this need. This aspect has been conceptualized in various termed such as meaning value (Khalifa, 2004) ethic and
spiritual value (Holbrook, 1999) and personal meaning (Brock and Mark, 2007). However several authors have
argued that this type of value is complicated for its operationalization (e.g. ethic value and spiritual value), thus it is
relatively neglected in the literature (Sanchez-Fernandez and Iniesta-Bonillo, 2007).
Although it may seem difficult to analyze, however at least in some point it can be explained that this need
exists. This can be seen from the finding of previous studies such as the study of Mirvis (1994) which found that the
customers are willing to pay up to 10% more for the product which are environmentally safe and the investors are
found to have favor on companies which have good record in environmental. This finding indicates that the customer
is likely to not only care about their self when purchasing the product, however they also care about the others thus
try to show this feeling by purchasing the product that can help and support others or in some point at least does not
harm others. Another study of Wall and Heslop (1986) found that the customers are found to be willing to purchase
their own country product rather than foreign product even though the quality is poorer than that of imports. This
finding indicates that the customer is willing to sacrifice a certain benefit that they could have or willing to take a
risk in order to support their own country. These forms of virtue or support either related to environment, country,
society, or anything else other than their self are considered as true value that has power to disregard any other value
dimensions. Thus the value can be obtained when the customers feel that they are doing good things from purchasing
the product.
Based on the discussion above, it can be said that there are two types of customer needs that need to be
considered when evaluating personal-related value which are the need for being their selves and the need for doing
good thing in life. Thus the model can be developed as below:

Figure-4. Customer needs in personal-related value

158

Asian Journal of Social Sciences and Management Studies, 2016, 3(2): 150-162

5. Previous Studies on Perceived Value

Table-1. Previous studies on perceived value

Product related value

Social-related value

Personal-related value

Need for product function

Need for pleasure

1,2,3,4,5,6,7,8,9,10,11,12,13,14,15,16,17
,18,20,21,22,23,24,25,26,27,29,30,31,32,
33,34,35,36,37,38,39,40,41,41,43,44,45,
46,47,48,49
Need for acceptance

1,2,3,4,6,7,8,12,14,16,18,19,20,23,25,2
7,32,33,36,37,39,41,42,43,44,45,46,49

2,4,12,18,20,23,24,31,33,36,37,38,41,42,
43,44,45,46
Need for being own-self
1,2,4,7,8,10,11,12,16,18,19,31,34,43,44,
49

18,20,23,24,25,31,32,33,36,39,42,43,45
,46,47,48
Need for doing good deeds
39,28

Need for compliment / appreciation

Note: Highlighted number for durable goods or non-service related

1.
2.
3.
4.
5.

Mathwick et al. (2001)

Andrews et al. (2012)
Babin et al. (1994)
Gallarza and Saura (2006)
Sweeney et al. (1999)

6.
7.
8.
9.
10.

Musa et al. (2005)

Tsaur et al. (2015)
Wang et al. (2000)
Lapierre (2000)
Snoj et al. (2004)

11.
12.
13.
14.
15.

Creusen et al. (2010)

16.
17.
18.
19.
20.

Yajing et al. (2007)

Yang and Peterson (2004)
Lee et al. (2011)
Mayr and Zins (2012)
Yang and Jolly (2009)

21.
22.
23.
24.
25.

Caruana and Fenech (2005)

Yu et al. (2014)
Ariff et al. (2012)
Lim et al. (2006)
Petrick (2002)

26.
27.
28.
29.
30.

Tung (2013)
Ringle et al. (2011)
Chen and Chang (2012)
Razavi et al. (2012)
Koshki et al. (2014)

31. Bakon and Hassan (2013)

32. Wiedmann et al. (2014)

36.
37.

Hennigs et al. (2015)

Chen (2013)

41.
42.

33. Chi (2013)

38.

Dumitrescu et al. (2013)

43.

34. Wang (2013)

35. Chang and Wang (2011)

39.
40.

Coutelle-Brillet et al. (2014)

Vera (2015)

44.
45.

Akinci et al. (2015)

Cocosila
and
Igonor
(2015)
Wongsuchat and Ngamyan
(2014)
El-Adly and Eid (2015)
Callarisa et al. (2011)

46.
47.
48.
49.

kudien et al. (2012)

Jen and Hu (2003)

Lin et al. (2005)
Tam (2004)

Sun et al. (2013)

Parente et al. (2015)
Songailiene et al. (2011)
Chahal
and
Kumari
(2012)

6. Conclusion
The present study has attempted to extend the knowledge of perceived value by providing a review related to the
dimensions of perceived value. The review of the literature reveals that the dimension of perceived value in the
context of durable product (non-service related) can be categorized into three groups which are product-related value,
social-related value, and personal-related value. In addition, there are six types of customer needs that need to be
considered when measuring perceived value which are the need for product function (need to solve the problem of
the customer), the need for pleasure, the need for acceptance, the need for compliment, the need for being own self,
and the need for doing good thing. By seeing value from this perspective, this study may help the organization as
well as the researchers in creating or identifying the dimension of consumption value.
The present study reveals that majority of the study focus on product-related value and social-related value,
while only few study included personal-related value into the measurement of perceived value especially in the
perspective of product as platform to do a good things in life. Thus future research may be directed to identify and
develop the scale of personal related value. It is important to consider personal-related value in measuring perceived
value since it does not only have effect on satisfaction, but also has effect on other dimension of value.

References
Akinci, S., A. Kiymaliolu and I.E. Atilgan, 2015. How golf players satisfaction from golf experience predicts their loyalty intentions?
Mediating role of perceived value. International Journal of Culture, Tourism and Hospitality Research, 9(2): 117-132.
Andrews, L., J. Drennan and R. Russell-Bennett, 2012. Linking perceived value of mobile marketing with the experiential consumption of
mobile phones. European Journal of Marketing, 46(3/4): 357-386.
Ariff, M.S.B.M., H.S. Fen, N. Zakuan, N. Ishak and K. Ismail, 2012. Relationship between customersperceived values, satisfaction and
loyalty of mobile phone users. Review of Integrative Business and Economics Research, 1(1): 126-135.
Babin, B.J., W.R. Darden and M. Griffin, 1994. Work and/or fun: Measuring hedonic and utilitarian shopping. Journal of Consumer Research,
20(4): 644656.

159

Asian Journal of Social Sciences and Management Studies, 2016, 3(2): 150-162
Bakon, K.A. and Z. Hassan, 2013. Perceived value of smartphone and its impact on deviant behaviour: An investigation on higher education
students in Malaysia. International Journal of Information System and Engineering, 1(1): 1-17.
Brock, S.P.D.J. and C.P.D. Mark, 2007. Customer value creation: A practical framework. Journal of Marketing Theory and Practice, 15(1): 723.
Brown, S., 1999. Devaluing value: The apophatic ethic and the spirit of postmodern consumption. In M.B. Holbrook (Eds). Consumer value. A
framework for analysis and research. London: Routledge. pp: 15982.
Burns, R.B., 1979. The self-concept in theory, measurement, development, and behavior. New York: Longman.
Callarisa, F.L.J., T.M.A. Moliner and G.J. Snchez, 2011. Multidimensional perspective of perceived value in industrial clusters. Journal of
Business & Industrial Marketing, 26(2): 132-145.
Caruana, A. and N. Fenech, 2005. The effect of perceived value and overall satisfaction on loyalty: A study among dental patients. Journal of
Medical Marketing: Device, Diagnostic and Pharmaceutical Marketing, 5(3): 245-255.
Chahal, H. and N. Kumari, 2012. Consumer perceived value: The development of a multiple item scale in hospitals in the Indian context.
International Journal of Pharmaceutical and Healthcare Marketing, 6(2): 167-190.
Chang, H.H. and H.W. Wang, 2011. The moderating effect of customer perceived value on online shopping behaviour. Online Information
Review, 35(3): 333-359.
Chen, W., 2013. Perceived value in community supported agriculture (CSA) a preliminary conceptualization, measurement, and nomological
validity. British Food Journal, 115(10): 1428-1453.
Chen, Y.S. and C.H. Chang, 2012. Enhance green purchase intentions: The roles of green perceived value, green perceived risk, and green
trust. Management Decision, 50(3): 502-520.
Chi, T., 2013. The effects of contingency factors on perceived values of casual sportswear: An empirical study of US consumers. Asia Pacific
Journal of Marketing and Logistics, 25(2): 249-262.
Cocosila, M. and A. Igonor, 2015. How important is the socialin social networking? A perceived value empirical investigation. Information
Technology & People, 28(2): 366-382.
Coutelle-Brillet, P., A. Riviere and V. des Garets, 2014. Perceived value of service innovation: A conceptual framework. Journal of Business &
Industrial Marketing, 29(2): 164-172.
Cova, B., 1997. Community and consumption: Towards a definition of the linking value of product or services. European Journal of
Marketing, 31(Fall/Winter): 297316.
Creusen, M.E., R.W. Veryzer and J.P. Schoormans, 2010. Product value importance and consumer preference for visual complexity and
symmetry. European Journal of Marketing, 44(9/10): 1437-1452.
Creusen, M.E.H. and J.P.L. Schoormans, 2005. The different roles of product appearance in consumer choice. Journal of Product Innovation
Management, 22(1): 63-81.
De Chernatony, L. and M.H.B. McDonald, 1997. Creating powerful brands. Oxford: Butterworth-Heinemann.
Dodds, W.B., M.B. Kent and G. Dhruv, 1991. Effects of price, brand, and store information on buyers product evaluations. Journal of
Marketing Research, 28(August): 307-319.
Dumitrescu, C., W. Nganje and C.J. Shultz, 2013. Perceived value of pasta in Greece and Romania. British Food Journal, 115(10): 1518-1536.
El-Adly, M.I. and R. Eid, 2015. Measuring the perceived value of malls in a Non-Western context: The case of the UAE. International Journal
of Retail & Distribution Management, 43(9): 849-869.
Fishbein, M. and I. Ajzen, 1975. Belief, attitude, intention and behavior: An introduction to theory and research. Reading, MA: AddisonWesley.
Gale, B.Y., 1994. Managing customer value. Creating quality and service that customers can see. New York: The Free Press.
Gallarza, M.G. and I. Gil, 2006. Value dimensions, perceived value, satisfaction and loyalty: An investigation of university students travel
behavior. Tourism Management, 29(3): 437452.
Gallarza, M.G. and I.G. Saura, 2006. Value dimensions, perceived value, satisfaction and loyalty: An investigation of university students
travel behaviour. Tourism Management, 27(3): 437-452.
Griffin, A. and J.R. Hauser, 1993. The voice of the customer. Marketing Science, 12(1): 1-27.
Ha, C.L., 1998. The theory of reasoned action applied to brand loyalty. Journal of Product & Brand Management, 7(1): 51-61.
Harris, P., R. Rettie and C.C. Kwan, 2005. Adoption and usage of m-commerce: A cross-cultural comparison of Hong Kong and the United
Kingdom. Journal of Electronic Commerce Research, 6(3): 210224.
Hartman, R.S., 1973. The Hartman value profile (HVP). Manual of interpretation. Muskegon, MI: Research Concepts.
Hennigs, N., K.P. Wiedmann, C. Klarmann and S. Behrens, 2015. The complexity of value in the luxury industry: From consumers individual
value perception to luxury consumption. International Journal of Retail & Distribution Management, 43(10/11): 922-939.
Henten, A., H. Olesen, D. Saugstup and S. Tan, 2003. New mobile systems and services in Europe, Japan and South Korea. The stockholm
mobility roundatable. Centre for Tele Information. Lyngby: Demark.
Holbrook, M.B., 1996. Customer value a framework for analysis and research. Advances in Consumer Research, 23(1): 138142.
Holbrook, M.B., 1999. Introduction to consumer value. In M.B. Holbrook (Eds). Consumer value. A framework for analysis and research.
London: Routledge. pp: 128.
Holbrook, M.B. and E.C. Hirschman, 1982. The experiential aspects of consumption: Consumer fantasies, feelings, and fun. Journal of
Consumer Research, 9(2): 132-140.
Huber, F., A. Herrmann and R.E. Morgan, 2001. Gaining competitive advantage through customer value oriented management. Journal of
Consumer Marketing, 18(1): 41-53.
Jai-Ok, K., F. Sandra, G. Qingliang and J.M. Sook, 2002. Cross-cultural consumer values, needs and purchase behavior. Journal of Consumer
Marketing, 19(6): 481502.
Jen, W. and K.C. Hu, 2003. Application of perceived value model to identify factors affecting passengers' repurchase intentions on city bus: A
case of the Taipei metropolitan area. Transportation, 30(3): 307-327.
Joiner, B.L., 1994. Fourth generation management: The new business consciousness. New York: McGraw-Hill.
Jordan, P.W., 1998. Human factors for pleasure in product use. Applied Ergonomics, 29(1): 25-33.
Kahle, L., 1989. Using the list of values (LOV) to understand consumers. J Consum Mark, 6(3): 512.
Khalifa, A.S., 2004. Customer value: A review of recent literature and an integrative configuration. Management Decision, 42(56): 645666.
Koshki, N., H. Esmaeilpour and A.S. Ardestani, 2014. The study on the effects of environmental quality, food and restaurant services on
mental image of the restaurant, customer perceived value, customer satisfaction and customer behavioral intentions: (Case study of
boroujerd's restaurants). Kuwait Chapter of the Arabian Journal of Business and Management Review, 3(10): 261-272.
Ladhari, R., F. Pons, G. Bressolles and M. Zins, 2011. Cultural and personal values: How they influence perceived service quality. Journal of
Business Research, 64(9): 951957.
Lai, A.W., 1995. Consumer values, product benefits and customer value: A consumption behavior approach. Advances in Consumer Research,
22(1): 381-388.
Langer, E.J., 1999. Self-esteem vs. self-respect. Psychologytoday. Sussex, 1 Nov. 1999. Web. 22 Dec. 2015. Available from
https://www.psychologytoday.com/articles/199911/self-esteem-vs-self-respect.
Lapierre, J., 2000. Customer-perceived value in industrial contexts. Journal of Business & Industrial Marketing, 15(2/3): 122-145.
Ledden, L., S.P. Kalafatis and P. Samouel, 2007. The relationship betweenpersonal values and perceived value of education. Journal of
Business Research, 60(9): 965974.
Lee, D., G.T. Trail, H.H. Kwon and D.F. Anderson, 2011. Consumer values versus perceived product attributes: Relationships among items
from the MVS, PRS, and PERVAL scales. Sport Management Review, 14(1): 89-101.
Lee, Y., J. Kim, I. Lee and H. Kim, 2002. A cross-cultural study on the value structure of mobile internet usage: Comparison between Korea
and Japan. Journal of Electronic Commerce Research, 3(4): 227239.

160

Asian Journal of Social Sciences and Management Studies, 2016, 3(2): 150-162
Leung, K., R.S. Bhagat, N.R. Buchan, M. Erez and C.B. Gibson, 2005. Culture and international business: Recent advances and their
implications for future research. Journal of International Business Studies, 36(4): 357-378.
Lim, H., R. Widdows and J. Park, 2006. M-loyalty: Winning strategies for mobile carriers. Journal of consumer Marketing, 23(4): 208-218.
Lin, C.-H., S.J. Peter and H.-Y. Shih, 2005. Past progress and future directions in conceptualizing customer perceived value. International
Journal of Service Industry Management, 16(4): 318-336.
Maslow, A.H., 1943. A theory of human motivation. Psychological Review, 50(4): 370-396.
Mason, R.S., 1981. Conspicuous consumption: A study of exceptional consumer behavior. Brookfield, VT: Gower.
Mathwick, C., N. Malhotra and E. Rigdon, 2001. Experiential value: Conceptualization, measurement and application in the catalog and
internet shopping environment. Journal of Retailing, 77(1): 3956.
Mattsson, J., 1991. Better business by the abc of values. Lund: Studdentlitteratur.
Mayr, T. and A.H. Zins, 2012. Extensions on the conceptualization of customer perceived value: Insights from the airline industry.
International Journal of Culture, Tourism and Hospitality Research, 6(4): 356-376.
Mirvis, P.H., 1994. Environmentalism in progressive businesses. Journal of Organizational Change Management, 7(4): 92-100.
Monroe, K.B., 1990. Pricing. Making profitable decisions. 2nd Edn., London: McGraw-Hill.
Musa, R., J. Pallister and M. Robson, 2005. The roles of perceived value, perceived equity and relational commitment in a disconfirmation
paradigm framework: An initial assessment in a relationship-rich'consumption environment. Advances in Consumer Research, 32(1):
349-357.
Nakata, C. and K. Sivakumar, 2001. Instituting the marketing concept in a multinational setting: The role of national culture. Journal of the
Academy of Marketing Science, 29(3): 255275.
Oliver, R., 1996. Varieties of value in the consumption satisfaction response. Advances in Consumer Research, 23: 143147.
Parasuraman, A., 1997. Reflections on gaining competitive advantage through customer value. Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science,
25(2): 154-161.
Parente, E.S., F.J. Costa and A.L. Leocdio, 2015. Conceptualization and measurement of customer perceived value in banks: A Brazilian
contribution. International Journal of Bank Marketing, 33(4): 494-509.
Park, W.C., J. Bernard and M. Deborah, 1986. Strategic brand concept-image management. Journal of Marketing, 50(October): 135145.
Pascale, Q.G., K. Amal and K.G. Li, 2000. Self-congruity and product evaluation: A cross-cultural study. Journal of Consumer Marketing,
17(6): 525 535.
Pavlou, P.A. and L. Chai, 2002. What drives electronic commerce across cultures? Across-cultural empirical investigation of the theory of
planned behavior. Journal of Electronic Commerce Research, 3(4): 240253.
Peter, J.P. and J.C. Olson, 1990. Consumer behavior and marketing strategy. 2nd Edn., Homewood, IL: Irwin.
Petrick, J.F., 2002. Development of a multi-dimensional scale for measuring the perceived value of a service. Journal of Leisure Research,
34(2): 119-134.
Pura, M., 2005. Linking perceived value and loyalty in location-based mobile services. Managing Service Quality, 15(6): 509538.
Pura, M. and J. Gummerus, 2007. Discovering perceived value of mobile services. HANKEN Working Papers, Series C, No. 529.
Razavi, S.M., H. Safari and H. Shafie, 2012. Relationships among service quality, customer satisfaction and customer perceived value:
Evidence from iran's software industry. Journal of Management and Strategy, 3(3): 28-37.
Richins, M.L., 1994. Valuing things: The public and private meanings of possessions. Journal of Consumer Research, 21(3): 504521.
Richins, M.L., 1999. Possessions, materialism, and other-directedness in the expression of self. In M.B. Holbrook (Eds). Consumer value: A
framework for analysis and research. London: Routledge. pp: 85104.
Ringle, C.M., M. Sarstedt and L. Zimmermann, 2011. Customer satisfaction with commercial airlines: The role of perceived safety and
purpose of travel. Journal of Marketing Theory and Practice, 19(4): 459-472.
Rokeach, M., 1968. The role of values in public opinion research. Public Opin Q, 32(4): 547559.
Sanchez-Fernandez, R. and M.A. Iniesta-Bonillo, 2007. The concept of perceived value: A systematic review of the research. Marketing
Theory, 7(4): 427-451.
Sheth, J.N., B.I. Newman and B.L. Gross, 1991a. Consumption values and market choices. Theory and applications. Cincinnati, OH: SouthWestern Publishing Co.
Sheth, J.N., B.I. Newman and B.L. Gross, 1991b. Why we buy what we buy: A theory of consumption values. Journal of Business Research,
22(2): 159-170.
Sirgy, J.M., 1986. Self-congruity: Toward a theory of personality and cybernetics. New York: Praeger.
Sirgy, M.J., 1985. Using self-congruity and ideal congruity to predict purchase motivation. Journal of Business Research, 13(3): 195-206.
kudien, V., . Nedzinskas, N. Ivanauskien and V. Aurukeviien, 2012. Customer perceptions of value: Case of retail banking.
Organizations and Markets in Emerging Economies, 3(1): 75-88.
Snoj, B., K.A. Pisnik and D. Mumel, 2004. The relationships among perceived quality, perceived risk and perceived product value. Journal of
Product & Brand Management, 13(3): 156-167.
Solomon, M.R., 1999. The value of status and the status of value. In M.B. Holbrook (Eds). Consumer value. A framework for analysis and
research. London: Routledge. pp: 6384.
Songailiene, E., H. Winklhofer and S. McKechnie, 2011. A conceptualisation of supplier-perceived value. European Journal of Marketing,
45(3): 383-418.
Sun, C., S. Su and J. Huang, 2013. Cultural value, perceived value, and consumer decision-making style in China: A comparison based on an
urbanization dimension. Nankai Business Review International, 4(3): 248-262.
Sweeney, J.C. and G.N. Soutar, 2001. Consumer perceived value: The development of a multiple item scale. Journal of Retailing, 77(2): 203
220.
Sweeney, J.C., G.N. Soutar and L.W. Johnson, 1999. The role of perceived risk in the quality-value relationship: A study in a retail
environment. Journal of Retailing, 75(1): 77-105.
Tam, J.L., 2004. Customer satisfaction, service quality and perceived value: An integrative model. Journal of Marketing Management, 20(7-8):
897-917.
Thompson, H., 1998. Marketing strategies: What do your customers really want? Journal of Business Strategy, 19(4): 16-21.
Treacy, M. and F. Wiersima, 1995. The discipline of market leaders. London: HarperCollins.
Tsaur, S.H., H.F. Luoh and S.S. Syue, 2015. Positive emotions and behavioral intentions of customers in full-service restaurants: Does
aesthetic labor matter? International Journal of Hospitality Management, 51: 115-126.
Tung, F.C., 2010. Customer satisfaction, perceived value and customer loyalty: The mobile services industry in China. African Journal of
Business Management, 7(18): 1730-1737.
Tung, F.C., 2013. Customer satisfaction, perceived value and customer loyalty: The mobile services industry in China. African Journal of
Business Management, 7(18): 1730-1737.
Vera, J., 2015. Perceived brand quality as a way to superior customer perceived value crossing by moderating effects. Journal of Product &
Brand Management, 24(2): 147-156.
Wagner, J., 1999. Aesthetic value beauty in art and fashion. In M.B. Holbrook (Eds). Consumer value. A framework for analysis and research.
London: Routledge. pp: 12646.
Wall, M. and L.A. Heslop, 1986. Consumer attitudes toward Canadian-made versus imported product. Journal of the Academy Marketing
Science, 14(2): 27-36.
Wang, C.L., Z.X. Chen, A.K. Chan and Z.C. Zheng, 2000. The influence of hedonic values on consumer behaviors: An empirical investigation
in China. Journal of Global Marketing, 14(1-2): 169-186.
Wang, E.S., 2013. The influence of visual packaging design on perceived food product quality, value, and brand preference. International
Journal of Retail & Distribution Management, 41(10): 805-816.

161

Asian Journal of Social Sciences and Management Studies, 2016, 3(2): 150-162
Wang, Y., H.P. Lo, R. Chi and Y. Yang, 2004. An integrated framework for customer value and customer-relationship-management
performance: A customer-based perspective from China. Managing Service Quality, 14(2-3): 169-182.
Wiedmann, K.P., S. Behrens, C. Klarmann and N. Hennigs, 2014. Customer value perception: Cross-generational preferences for wine. British
Food Journal, 116(7): 1128-1142.
Wongsuchat, P. and A. Ngamyan, 2014. A study of relation among perceived consumption value and customer satisfaction of boutique hotel in
Thailand. International Journal of Scientific and Research, 4(7): 1-7.
Woodruff, R.B., 1997. Customer value: The next source for competitive advantage. Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, 25(2): 139153.
Yajing, S., S. Huaying and Q. Jiayin, 2007. Customer value hierarchy based customer demand analysis in personalized service recommender
system. International Journal of Simulation, 7(7): 77-84.
Yang, K. and L.D. Jolly, 2009. The effects of consumer perceived value and subjective norm on mobile data service adoption between
American and Korean consumers. Journal of Retailing and Consumer Services, 16(6): 502-508.
Yang, Z. and R.T. Peterson, 2004. Customer perceived value, satisfaction, and loyalty: The role of switching costs. Psychology & Marketing,
21(10): 799-822.
Yu, H.S., J.J. Zhang, D.H. Kim, K.K. Chen, C. Henderson, S.D. Min and H. Huang, 2014. Service quality, perceived value, customer
satisfaction, and behavioral intention among fitness center members aged 60 years and over. Social Behavior and Personality: An
International Journal, 42(5): 757-767.
Zeithaml, V.A., 1988. Consumer perceptions of price, quality, and value: A means-end model and synthesis of evidence. Journal of Marketing,
52(3): 2-22.

Bibliography
Lim, H., 2006. M-loyalty: Winning strategy for mobile carriers. Journal of Consumer Marketing, 23(4): 208-218.

Asian Online Journal Publishing Group is not responsible or answerable for any loss, damage or liability, etc. caused in relation to/arising out of the use of the
content. Any queries should be directed to the corresponding author of the article.

162